| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Date: | 2010-11-11 19:03:42 |
| Message-ID: | 19206.1289502222@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:36:38PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> then the conclusion is foregone. To my mind, they should be thought of
> as running in parallel, or at least in an indeterminate order, just
> exactly the same way that different data modifications made in a single
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE command are considered to be made simultaneously.
>>
>> +1
> -1.
> When people want to see what has gone before, they can use RETURNING
> clauses. With the "indeterminate order" proposal, they cannot.
Say what? The RETURNING data is well defined in any case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-11-11 19:07:11 | Re: wCTE behaviour |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-11-11 18:56:45 | Re: wCTE behaviour |